1. The respondents no. 5 to 11 are working on different sub-stations on account of vacancy caused for different reasons on the post of Junior Engineer under whom the said sub-stations were placed. The charge of Junior Engineer has been assigned to these respondents who are working in concerned sub-stations with the clear averment that this will not give any extra advantage of remuneration, honorarium etc. to these persons and arrangement has been made making them In-charge Junior Engineer for the period of three months only.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a kind of promotion and though petitioner is working elsewhere in the different sub-stations they are entitled to be considered for such promotion.
3. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. It is a kind of local arrangement made due to vacancy having caused thereat may be on account of transfer, retirement or any other reason of the concerned Junior Engineer under whom the said office worked and till regular promotions are made, at local level as stopgap arrangement the senior most person in the concerned sub-station has been given charge on the said post.
4. A Division Bench in Vinod Kumar Makhija and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2004 (1) UPLBEC 87 has considered a similar argument and repelled the same observing as under:
"4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain employees who are junior engineers and are junior to the petitioner are officiating as engineers, and the petitioners are senior to them. In our opinion, this does not confer any right to the petitioners to officiate as engineers. For example, if a District Judge of certain district is elevated as a High Court Judge or is transferred, then ordinarily the senior most Additional District Judge in that district is allowed to officiate as District Judge, even though there may be other Additional District Judges in the State who may be senior to such person. In such circumstances, those senior persons cannot claim that they should also be appointed as officiating District Judge. There may be a situation where a competent junior person is allowed to officiate on the higher post whereas an incompetent or average senior person is not allowed to officiate on the higher post. This kind of ad hoc appointment on a higher post confers no right to the post, and the person so promoted in an ad hoc or officiating capacity can be reverted without giving opportunity of hearing."
5. The arrangement has been made in the case in hand is neither promotion nor conferred the status of higher post upon the incumbent concerned but only for the purpose of day to day work sush arrangement has been made. It does not confer any right upon the incumbent concerned to hold the post. In Vinod Kumar Makhija (supra) the Division Bench also observed:
"Officiating or temporary appointment confers no right to the post. It is well settled in service law that while a permanent appointee has a right to the post, an officiating, temporary, casual or daily wage appointee has no right to the post."
6. Similarly another Division Bench while considering distinction between promotion and handing over charge in Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1998(1) UPLBEC 280 in para 11 said:
"11. A person, who is authorised to carry on some additional work, carriers no right, no lien and is not entitled for any pecuniary benefits for doing certain extra work."
7. The case in hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid exposition of law and it cannot be said that respondents no. 5 to 11 have been promoted on higher post ignoring petitioner. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 21.2.2011 AK